Return to ads
All categories
Thune Amendment

Thune Amendment

Posted by
Posting ads for 49 years
Democrats Defeat Concealed Weapons AmendmentSen.

John Thune (R-S.D.).(Lauren Victoria Burke/Associated Press)By Paul Kane By the narrowest of margins, the Senate's liberal bloc of Democrats defeated an amendment that would have allowed gun owners to carry their weapons across state lines without regard for stricter laws in many jurisdictions, giving preference to states with looser standards.

In a 58-39 vote, supporters of the looser gun law -- including all but two Republicans and almost 20 moderate Democrats -- fell two votes short of the 60 they needed under Senate rules to approve the measure.

The amendment, sponsored by Sen.

John Thune (R-S.D.), showed the bitter divisions among a Democratic caucus that now holds 60 seats, many of whom got to the Senate by winning in conservative states as they proudly supported gun rights.

It also divided the party's leadership, as Majority Leader Harry M.

Reid (D-Nev.), campaigning for re-election in 2010, sided with gun rights supporters.

His top lieutenants, Sens.

Richard J.

Durbin (D-Ill.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), led the push against the measure.Even in defeat, the debate demonstrated the continued power of the National Rifle Association and gun rights advocates in Congress, because the Thune amendment was considered the most far reaching federal effort ever proposed to expand laws to allow weapons ownership.

Offered as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill, it would allow people to carry concealed firearms across state lines, provided they "have a valid permit or if, under their state of residence ...

are entitled to do so." This means that someone who had a concealed-carry permit for his gun in a state like Vermont -- with some of the loosest gun-control laws in the nation -- could cross over into other states with their guns and not be found guilty of violating those states' tighter gun laws.

"This carefully tailored amendment will ensure that a state's border is not a limit to an individual's fundamental right and will allow law-abiding individuals to travel without complication throughout the 48 states that already permit some form of conceal and carry," Thune said during Wednesdays' sometimes heated debate.Big-city mayors, such as New York's Michael Bloomberg, led a furious lobbying effort to try to derail the amendment, along with gun-victims groups, such as the families of students killed in the 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech University.

Bloomberg, in a letter to Reid, noted that at least 31 states prohibit alcohol abusers from obtaining concealed-carry permits; at least 35 states bar people convicted of certain misdemeanors from becoming gun owners; and at least 31 states require people to complete gun-safety programs before securing a weapons permit.

In a rare instance in which they trumpeted states' rights, Democrats noted that 36 states have specific laws regarding these gun permits and include specific lists of which states' permits they will recognize.

"The states already have laws.

Under the Thune amendment, those laws could be ignored.

So if the Thune amendment becomes law, people who are currently prohibited from carrying concealed guns in those 36 states are free to do so.

It is absurd that we are considering this," Durbin, the majority whip, said.

Democrats, who have traditionally championed gun control as a way to reduce crime, are suffering from their own political success of the past two elections.

Schumer served as chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for the 2006 and 2008 election cycles, specifically recruiting supporters of the Second Amendment to run in states where gun ownership is common.

Going from 45 seats in the fall of 2006 to 60 seats this summer, Democrats now have about 25 senators who are strong supporters of gun rights.

During the debate, Schumer offered the theoretical example of a gang member in New York City moving to Vermont and establishing residency there, then buying guns and transporting them back to New York.

"The reality of that particular situation is the gang members already have their guns....

The people who need this bill are the ones that the gang members might be threatening," countered Sen.

James Webb (D-Va.), a supporter of the Second Amendment whose support from Schumer was crucial to his 2006 victory, which gave Democrats their Senate majority.

Faced with a difficult re-election battle next year in what is regarded as a pro-gun state, Reid told reporters Tuesday he would support the measure but then refused to explain why.

Republicans have already succeeded twice this year in rolling back restrictions on guns with substantial backing from those moderate to conservative Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008.

In February, 22 Senate Democrats joined Republicans to stall the District's quest for House voting rights by demanding that the legislation also ease D.C.

gun restrictions.

The National Rifle Association called Thune's amendment "important and timely pro-gun reform" and urged a yes vote.

By 44 Editor �|� July 22, 2009; 12:34 PM ET Categories:� Senate Share This:� E-Mail | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Digg | Stumble Previous: Today on the Hill CommentsIt is really time to tell the National Rifle Association to take a hike.

This amendment was totally unnecessary and I will not make a donation to any Democrat that supported it.

It is time for Democrats to grow a spine and time for a new leader of the Senate.Posted by: peterdc | July 22, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuseReed is a Democrat....geez, standards people, standardsPosted by: jmccas | July 22, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuseThis is very good news.

Thank you to all who voted no.

And I thought Mr.

Thune and the Repubs were pro-states rights...except when it comes to guns and Bush v.

Gore.Posted by: jillcohen | July 22, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuseperhaps they'd also like to vote on cross-state same sex marriage rights based on other's states statutes Posted by: dboston | July 22, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuseThis is good news.

But rather than suggest the Senate is the final word, what don't they make it clear any such nonsense law would immediately be challenged in the courts?Bad law can't stand.

Gee, I wish our Congress was smart.

It's not.Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | July 22, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuseTo jmccas..

I believe you meant "Reid" of Nevada, not "Reed" of Rhode Island...Posted by: salf | July 22, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuseMr.

Thune is either an (nra) lacky or he's an ( ! )...

or maybe he's both.

Whatever the case, now he's a looser.Posted by: whocares666 | July 22, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuseScary that only 39 members of the Senate have coommonsense and understand the state sovereignty principal that is at risk by this legislation.

People in Md should not have to feel threatened by yahoos from Florida driving up and down 95 with concealed weaponsPosted by: PepperDr | July 22, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuseI have serious issues with this bill.

If you live in a state that allows concealed weapons that's fine, but it is completely assanine for you to think you should come into someone elses state and have those same rights.

It's not about taking away your right to bear arms, it's about you having the right to carry a concealed weapon ANYWHERE in this country! This essentially would mean that states that do not allow concealed weapons would have such laws pretty much be meaningless.

It's unfair.

If you want to carry a concealed weapon fine, do it in the state where you live! This is a VERY slippery slope!Posted by: negee99 | July 22, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuseLiberal Democrats vote in favor of states rights.

Priceless.Posted by: slim2 | July 22, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuseIt appears the Republicans and the Vichy Democrats are all for state rights -- except when the NRA tells them they're not supposed to be.Posted by: PeterPrinciple | July 22, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuseI'm a usually reliable Democratic voter and I would like to know who voted against this so I can campaign against them.

The gun control fanatics from the big cities and the Northeast have inflicted their irrational fears on the rest of the country for far too long.

Polls show that at least 65% of voters wanted this legislation and I am getting rather sick and tired of a few fanatics inflicting their ideology on us.Posted by: mibrooks27 | July 22, 2009 12:53 PM | Report abuseCivil rights don't stop at state lines.

The fact that I even need to get a permit to carry a gun (concealed) is compromise enough in my opinion.

States rights and civil rights are too different things -- and when states restrict civil rights too much, it's entirely appropriate for the federal government to step in to address the problem.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | July 22, 2009 12:54 PM | Report abuseThis amendment enforcing the 14th Amendment's privileges and immunities clause was totally necessary, just as gay marriage recognition in all states is also necessary.

AND Vermont requires no permit to carry concealed, so the article should be edited.Posted by: k_romulus | July 22, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuseI voted for Webb once.

I guess I'm not voting for him again.Posted by: pmax | July 22, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuseAnyone ever hear of Full Faith and Credit? Your driver's license works across state borders, why not your permit to carry?Posted by: robdoar | July 22, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuseSomeone one, and it wasn't the people.

For the idiotic, what exists right now is "reciprocity" between the states - most states recognize other state's Gun Permits.

So a person can travel with their firearm and just be careful while passing through states that have no agreement with their home state.

We pretty much already have what was being considered.SO the idiotic arguments, and I do mean stupid to the extreme, by the Democrats of Gang members trafficking guns, Husbands with duffle bags of firearms etc, really seemed to connect with some.

Not that these things have EVER happened, or could ever happen - doesn't matter, someone thinks they WON a major battle against the gun lobby.You can't fix stupid - and with so many people so afraid of make believe non existent government created bad guys (like people who have passed background checks so as to carry a firearm) I guess the true enemy of the United States is it's own people.Posted by: mdsinc | July 22, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuseHooray!Posted by: cmckeonjr | July 22, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse"most states recognize other state's Gun Permits.

"This is nor even remotely true...review handgunlaw.us to see your error.Posted by: robdoar | July 22, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuseI wrote to Jim Webb asking him not to do this.

I think he will discover he has crossed a line he should not have crossed.

This was a gross overreach against states' rights, including their most basic right of deciding how best to protect their own citizens' lives.

Not exactly Virginia values.Posted by: fairfaxvoter | July 22, 2009 1:01 PM | Report abuseslim2 wrote: "Liberal Democrats vote in favor of states rights.

Priceless."Conservatives vote against it.

Hilarious.

Posted by: nodebris | July 22, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuseReid is a completely ineffective, self-serving Democrat.

I'm glad he lost this vote and I hope he loses his senate seat next year even if it costs my party.

Reid should make way for someone who can better control and make use of its majority.

Time for Reid to go imo.Posted by: jpsbr2002 | July 22, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuseTo Pepperdr: I have a Florida CCW permit, and I live in MD.

Why are you afraid of me? Posted by: webdog44 | July 22, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuseWebb did something good today.I do find it amusing when Democrats talk about states' rights.From wikipedia:"When the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison secretly wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which provide a classic statement in support of states' rights.

According to this theory, the federal Union is a voluntary association of states, and if the central government goes too far each state has the right to nullify that law.

As Jefferson said in the Kentucky Resolutions: Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party....each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, along with the supporting Report of 1800 by Madison, became bedrock documents of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.

The most vociferous supporters of states' rights, such as John Randolph, were called "Old Republicans" into the 1820s and 1830s.Another states' rights dispute occurred over the War of 1812.

At the Hartford Convention, New England states voiced opposition to President James Madison and the war, and discussed secession from the Union."Posted by: win_harrington | July 22, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuseThe best News, I've heard all "YEAR." It's about time, the Democrats grew a "BACK BONE." If the "CRUSTY NRA", had their way, little Babies would be carrying "GUNS", in Day Care Centers.Those Guys are "FOOLS', and they assume the America public are as "DUMB", as their "SHEEP."Let's hope the Democrat "DEFEAT", every Bill they bring up for "VOTE.""GUN NUTS"Posted by: austininc4 | July 22, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuseCalifornia is going to release thousands of prison inmates.

About 75 percent of them, according to parole statistics, will re-offend.

People who are against firearm ownership in certain areas in the state might have to forswear their goofy position once they're scared sh(tless with paroled thugs from the East Bay of Frisco, (Oakland) for example, break in homes in Marin County where rich Libs reside.Posted by: sperrico | July 22, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuseAWESOME!The last thing we need in America is wack-job religious fundamentalists, fearful militia members, and NEOCONS from backward-minded states carrying concealed weapons across state lines.Common Sense and scientific facts that a handgun owner is 40 TIMES more likely to cause an accident with the weapon than use it to defend themselves WIN THE DAY!THUNE IS A BIG NEOCON L-O-S-E-R !Posted by: onestring | July 22, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuseI am torn.

Not on this issue -- I flip off the NRA every time I drive by them in Fairfax County -- but on the politics.

I voted for Webb because I thought it was important to have a Dem but I compromised my principles on gun control.

Looks like a lot of other Dems did too and we almost got nailed in this vote.

A wake up call to be careful what we ask for...Posted by: conchfc | July 22, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuseI am a gun owner and supporter of gun rights, but I applaud those brave enough to reject this particular amendment.

My driver's license is valid in all 50 states, but if Indiana, where I live, issued driver's licenses with the same rigor they issue conceal carry permits I don't believe I'd be legally allowed to drive outside the state.

Too many states require NO training and NO familiarity with criminal and civil gun laws before issuing permits.

In Indiana there are NO requirements other than a background check, not even the simplest check to see if the permit holder is familiar with the most basic hand gun safety.

If gun enthusiasts ever want a national conceal carry permit to become a reality they must begin by strengthening standards across the states.Posted by: stan3 | July 22, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuseThe crackpots from the looney left have gotten control of the Democratic Party.

The "progressive" (and there's an oxymoron) don't represents me or other classic liberals and a Democratic Party that listens to them has no business governing.

The looney's on the left support "free trade", more H1-B visas, twin evils that have cost this country 40 million jobs, Wall Street bailouts, "health care reform" that is nothing more than a new feed trough for the health care parasites and NOT universal health care, illegal immigration and amnesty, a whole host of evils that the vast majority of voters are opposed to.

In 2010, when you loose and loose big, when Obama's gerbil's and Wall Street friends are simply crushed in the vote, then maybe the DNC will take a look at itself and start getting around to representing the actual people who vote.

It seems the Republican's learned their lesson about Bush and the NeoCon clodhoppers, at least.

The Democrats have leaned absolutely nothing.

Morons.Posted by: mibrooks27 | July 22, 2009 1:15 PM | Report abuseI still don't see how the wording of the 2nd amendment gives anyone the individual right to own and carry guns.

Posted by: jillcohen | July 22, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuseWarner and Webb voted for the bill.

Here's a list of Democrats from thehill.com.http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/concealed-weapons-amendment-shot-down-2009-07-22.html"Nineteen other Democrats crossed over to support the amendment: Max Baucus of Montana, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Michael Bennet of Colorado, Bob Casey Jr.

of Pennsylvania, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Jon Tester of Montana, Tom Udall of New Mexico, Mark Udall of Colorado and Mark Warner and Jim Webb of Virginia."Posted by: win_harrington | July 22, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuseI'll save the rabid right wingers some time...

it's all Obama's fault.

Posted by: AverageJane | July 22, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuseI won't be voting for Webb again, either.There is no one nuttier - or scarier - than a gun nut.Posted by: solsticebelle | July 22, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuseFor those of us who are confused it would greatlyhelp of each member of congress would change their names to the lobby group they most get their money from.

Like Senator NRA Thune, Banks Dodd, Credit cards Biden, etc.

Would sure save time and we might know from where they really came on an issue.

It would reallyhelp oif each time a Member ovted that the vote also showed which lobby group gave them money.

But then I dream a lot!Posted by: KBlit | July 22, 2009 1:20 PM | Report abuseWhy can you people have their driver's and marriage license honored in every state but their concealed weapons licenses are not? Why is Vermont the only state that honors the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment? Why is it that in states that have concealed weapons permits there is less crime than in states that do not, except Vermont? It is so interesting that Vermont stays awake while the rest of the country is asleep.

Posted by: fiveman3 | July 22, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuse"Your driver's license works across state borders, why not your permit to carry?"I can't believe this sort of reasoning is going around.

The answer, dear, is that you can't kill someone with a driver's license.Posted by: johnstonrw | July 22, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuseThe issue here is the same as 30 years ago, it was illegal in many States to drive across State lines without obtaining a drivers license issued by the State you were visiting.

Some Southern States detained & issued tickets just on out of State license plates.

Under the Fair & Equitable doctrine my CCW should be recognized in any State that allow concealed carry.

Get over it Liberals, you sound like chicken little Posted by: xraycommd | July 22, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuseThere are many deaths each year by people with a driver's license who abuse their driving rights.

Check out ths stats!Posted by: fiveman3 | July 22, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuseWhy not just standardize the requirements for a CCW?Posted by: ronjaboy | July 22, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuseOne thing you anti gunners do not understand: this no vote only affects law abiding citizens.

Criminals are already carrying concealed weapons across state lines.

Only law abiding citizens follow the law.

Posted by: jackp1 | July 22, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse"People in Md should not have to feel threatened by yahoos from Florida driving up and down 95 with concealed weapons".Those yahoos from FL have much more to worry about from the thugs in Baltimore than we do from them.

They managed to not shoot anyone in FL, GA, SC, NC or VA on the way up here, and probably won't shoot anyone in MD either.Posted by: keepandbear | July 22, 2009 1:25 PM | Report abuseThe United States will not be a fully civilized country until the Second Amendment is repealed.

We can parse what the framers truly meant all we like -- whether they intended it to be about 18th-century militias specifically, or about every citizen having unfettered gun rights -- but the simple fact is, the Second Amendment (and the loony behavior it encourages) is responsible for tens of thousands of needless deaths every year.

It should be a goner.That said, this amendment failed by such a precarious margin that if a couple liberals lose in 2010, it might pass in the next session.

So, expanding on dboston and k_romulus's comments, maybe it would be fun to launch a bill tying interstate carry rights to interstate gay-marriage rights, just to watch the NRA nuts squirm.Posted by: jonfromcali | July 22, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abusesolsticebelle wrote: "There is no one nuttier - or scarier - than a gun nut."No, it is the people with irrational fears of guns that frighten me more.

They are so afraid of guns that they want to make everyone afraid and limit the means by which others may defend themselves.Posted by: ahashburn | July 22, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuseThese GOP loonies have nothing else to offer...they use these kinds of issues to con the public as they have done for many years.

Their real constituency is the corporations but that can only get you so many votes.

To get more votes, these con artists use these wedge issues to divide the public.

Posted by: kevin1231 | July 22, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abusePlease explain why this was ever launched as an amendment to an important bill? Why would anyone care? Answer: the NRA, bloated organ of the extreme right, is proactively testing its muscle.

It's muscle is ownership by contribution of every Senator and Congressman in the nation.

Was this a setback to the NRA? Not really, even the NRA can overreach with frivolity and stupidity.

Shame on all those Democrats, especially Reid, who voted for this measure.Posted by: walden1 | July 22, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuseGood.

This was a state's rights issue.

Each state should be able to craft its own gun laws.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | July 22, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuseI would suggest that people research these matters before they comment on them.

If one of you were sitting in a restaurant and a crazy walked in and opened fire, you might be glad a trained, screened, and legally armed citizen came to your aid -- even if you were afraid of guns.

Check the crime statistics in states where there are concealed weapons permits and with those where there are not.

The facts do not lie.

Criminals do not like armed citizens.

They act differently when they do not know if people are armed or not.

Posted by: fiveman3 | July 22, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abusePlease explain why this was ever launched as an amendment to an important bill? Why would anyone care? Answer: the NRA, bloated organ of the extreme right, is proactively testing its muscle.

It's muscle is ownership by contribution of every Senator and Congressman in the nation.

Was this a setback to the NRA? Not really, even the NRA can overreach with frivolity and stupidity.

Shame on all those Democrats, especially Reid, who voted for this measure.Posted by: walden1 | July 22, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuseAs an NRA member, I support Sen.

John Thune and his measure to allow concealed weapons in every state.I also feel everyone should be allowed to bring their guns to schools, sporting events, church services, airports, libraries, and workplaces.

The NRA lobbyists recently pressured the Senate to pass a measure to allow concealed guns in National Parks.

Why not allow people to arm themselves anywhere else they go? So what if occasionally a few innocent bystanders get blown away in the cross fire --- such is the price of freedom!I also believe all law abiding citizens age 21 or over should be provided a gun with ammo by the Government free of charge.

As the NRA has proven, more guns = less crime and the fact is that every adult cannot always afford to buy a gun.

Forget about a waiting period -- upon request, just issue a loaded gun when someone turns 21.

In my case, I have been in trouble with the law several times over the past 3 years (I have a bad temper) so I have been having difficulty buying a weapon at the local gun store.

If I had gotten one from the Government 10 years ago when I turned 21, I would have been well armed to defend myself all those years and probably would have blown away a few criminals and terrorists like the low-life who dented my car last month.

Thanks to the support of the NRA, I was able to buy .44 Magnum Colt and AK-47 assault rifle at a Gun Show recently without any background check.

Actually, I brought a few extra guns and rifles to sell to my buddies who also have had problems with the law.

Let's make sure we keep supporting the NRA's opposition to banning assault rifles, its opposition to background checks by unlicensed dealers, and its opposition to limiting the number of weapons that can be purchased at the same time so that good folks like me can provide plenty of powerful guns to our friends who, in turn, can sell them "South of the Border" or in inner cities and make some nice money on the side!! And, thank God, there is the Tiahrt Amendment sponsored by the NRA that makes it difficult for law enforcement to trace the source of firearms brought and sold.Finally, how about we get the law changed and make machine guns and granade launchers available to the public!! After all, terrorists and criminals are able to obtain such weapons so why can't a "good old boy" like me have the same fire power to defend myself? Does not the 2nd Admendment give us the right to be as equally armed as our adversaries? NRA -- are you listening??(P.S.

At the NRA Annual Convention, I was talking to someone who works at the NRA as an accountant.

He told me that gun show promoters, gun manufacturers and gun shop owners are the biggest contributors to the NRA and, without them, theorganization could not afford to pay LaPierre and Cox the multi-million compensation packages they receive.

I think every penny these wealthy, gun-loving guys get paid is well deserved!!) Posted by: dh110713 | July 22, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuseAmazing.

I have to carry my toothpaste in a clear plastic baggie to get on a plane, but my legislators, with support of the NRA, want me to be able to carry a concealed loaded gun where I choose? Anywhere but a plane, I guess.

Posted by: cdphillips | July 22, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuseThe Blue Dog Waterloo! Looks like the liberals in the senate put them in their place.

Hurray!! Now lets move on to that health care legislation that senator DiMwit was talking about.Posted by: NewMoon | July 22, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse"Your driver's license works across state borders, why not your permit to carry?"I can't believe this sort of reasoning is going around.

The answer, dear, is that you can't kill someone with a driver's license.Are you serious?? Every time a drunk with a valid driver's license gets behind the wheel of a 4000lb vehicle, there is an explicit threat that someone is going to die.

Every time someone willfully disobeys traffic laws, there is an explicit threat that someone may die from this action.

If this is the level of discourse going around, I'm in mortal fear of the future of this country.Posted by: steves_59 | July 22, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuseDear poster robdoar,There are 24 states that have reciprocity agreements with Virginia.

Where is my error? Go to the page - Who honors my Permit and find this:Virginia - AK*, AR, AZ, DE, FL, ID, IN, KY, LA, MI, MO, MT, NC, NM, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT*, WV"most states recognize other state's Gun Permits.

"This is nor even remotely true...review handgunlaw.us to see your error.Posted by: robdoar Posted by: mdsinc | July 22, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuseWhy do we need concealed-carry permits? Can someone explain to me where the 2nd Amendment says you have the right to HIDE your gun? Why not have it out in the open, like the Old West? Only cowards hid their guns in those days.Posted by: mikeinmidland | July 22, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abusejohnstonrw wrote: "Your driver's license works across state borders, why not your permit to carry?"I can't believe this sort of reasoning is going around.

The answer, dear, is that you can't kill someone with a driver's license."My Concealed permit looks just like my driver's license.

It is a small laminated card that fits in my wallet.

Why is it dangerous?I'm done with the sarcasm.

You're right, You probably cannot kill someone with a drivers license...or a concealed carry permit.

But you could jump in your car and drive it through the next bus stop and kill all ten people waiting for the bus.

Or I could see you coming and driving straight for us and I could legally shoot you first and save 10 lives because I have a concealed handgun permit.

Posted by: webdog44 | July 22, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuseIf a nut opens fire in a crowded restaurant and then someone with a concealed weapon starts shooting at the nut, the body count will be even higher.

The argument that you will be able to kill an intruder before he dills you or steals your gun is ludicrous.

Posted by: jillcohen | July 22, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuseThe 2nd Amendment states the people have "the right to keep and bear arms." That implies hidden or in the open, it does not exclude either.

If you read the posts there is even someone who stated they do not see where the 2nd Amendment gives this right to individuals.

The Bill of Rights is about rights to individuals.

Individual rights equals the rights of the people.

The people.

Law abiding citizens, not criminals.

Posted by: fiveman3 | July 22, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse"I still don't see how the wording of the 2nd amendment gives anyone the individual right to own and carry guns." Posted by: jillcohenRegardless of the wording of the 2nd amendment no one who abides by the laws of one state should expect their laws to follow them into another state.

Maybe VA should allow me to use a radar detector since I'm from MD where they are legal.

What complete NRA twisted insanity to increase the profits of the gun inductry, their only reason for existence.

If this amendment passed just think of all the state laws and their right to enforce them that would evaporate.

DC could not arrest me while driving with a cell phone because I'm from MD.

And what about visitors from overseas? Would someone from Denmark be allowed to smoke pot and drink at the age of 18 because that's the law in Denmark? I swear republicans see the law only in terms of how it supports them personally, not how it maintains the peace or promotes civility and could care less about unintended consequences.

They should all be voted out.

And why people give money to the NRA I have no clue.

Just where doe their money go to improve their lives or provide a service?Posted by: bevjims1 | July 22, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuseYou mean the NRA is not in charge of congress anymore?? Yay!!!!Posted by: fluxgirl | July 22, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuseToo bad you don't have to have a "permit" to comment on these issues.

You should be required to have a basic understanding of what your commenting on and an IQ above that of an eggplant.

Posted by: whatup1 | July 22, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse"I can't believe this sort of reasoning is going around.

The answer, dear, is that you can't kill someone with a driver's license."You're kidding right? You absolutely can kill with your driver's license.

There were 37,261 deaths in 2008 due to a motor vehicle accident according to NHTSA.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811172.pdfWould you have us believe these were un-licensed drivers? I get it though, almost everyone has a car and some people don't like guns.

So we can ignore some deaths and play up the fears involving guns.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | July 22, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuseThe people who do not want a gun, do not have to have a gun.

But the law abiding citizen who desires a gun to protect him- or herself should be allowed to do so after screening and training are accomplished.

This is an evolved expression of the 2nd Amendment.

These screened, trained, and legally allowed concealed weapon licensees should be allowed across state lines without exception.

Or you are living in either a paranoid or other delusional state.

Posted by: fiveman3 | July 22, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuseThune was just burnishing his right week credentials for the Presidential election in 2012.Posted by: YUTZ | July 22, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuseThis is true, but it should also be noted that there are more drivers than gun owners.

So it's skewed.Also, when someone is killed in a car accident, it a result of the car not performing its intended function - transportation.

When someone is killed by a gun, the opposite is true.

Guns were invented to kill.The driving license argument is as poor as Schumer's gang argument.

-----There are many deaths each year by people with a driver's license who abuse their driving rights.

Check out ths stats!Posted by: JohninMpls | July 22, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuseLast comment with a question:There is a city -- or more than one -- where all citizens without a criminal record are required - REQUIRED - to own a gun to be kept in their homes.

There is very little crime in this city.

Does anyone know what city this is? I do not know the answer.

I think it may be in Utah.

If you know, please submit same.

Thanks...Posted by: fiveman3 | July 22, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuseSo whatever happened to State's rights?Posted by: collacch | July 22, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuseDriver's license requirements are essentially identical in every state.

Therefore all states have reciprocity.Currently, states with similar permit laws tend to have reciprocity.

Those with vastly different requirements do not.If this amendment set the minimum requirements to at least the "average" state's requirements, then I'd be OK with it.

But all you NRA types want to go with the least restrictive state's law--right? I thought so.Posted by: mikeinmidland | July 22, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuseThe simple answer is your interpretation doesn't matter.

It doesn't even matter what the amendment actually says.

It's the Supreme Court's interpretation of the intent of the amendment that matters, ultimately.It doesn't mean I agree or disagree with your interpretation.

But our opinions don't matter.-----I still don't see how the wording of the 2nd amendment gives anyone the individual right to own and carry guns.Posted by: JohninMpls | July 22, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuseNoVAHockey:"Civil rights don't stop at state lines.

The fact that I even need to get a permit to carry a gun (concealed) is compromise enough in my opinion."Wow.

You win the prize for most asinine post on here!Thank goodness this didn't pass.

I support the 2nd Amendment and all, but you rabid gun nuts want to turn things into a free for all.

Omg, you need to get a permit to have a gun? Let me get the world's smallest violin and play you a tune.

So, you think that we should just give you a gun-- without you first learning how to use it, taking a proper gun safety course, or getting a background check to make sure you're not bat-$h*t insane? Too funny.Posted by: jromaniello | July 22, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuseIt will be interesting to see how you respond when the same argument is used regarding gay marriage.

If you don't want one, don't have one.Of course, gay marriage opponents seem to think that this possibility is as potentially destructive as gun control advocates feel about firearms.-----The people who do not want a gun, do not have to have a gun.

But the law abiding citizen who desires a gun to protect him- or herself should be allowed to do so after screening and training are accomplished.Posted by: JohninMpls | July 22, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuseIMO if states agree to reciprocity with one another, thats one thing...I am in no way in favor of the federal government telling states what to do...

stay the heck out of our way...Posted by: indep2 | July 22, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuseWhy don't Republicans push to allow people with permits the right to carry their concealed weapons into congressional offices and the Capitol building? Someone should do so and challenge the constitutionality of that current prohibition.

And it should be lead by the NRA.Posted by: HillRat | July 22, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse58 in favor of the concealed carry permit.

39 opposed to it.

Majority does not get to win this time.

Hmmm.

The bleeding hearts won this battle by the slimmest of margins, I will admit.

This was a great measure for that subset in the 39 that is looking to get re-elected in those jurisdictions where they ran on 2nd amendment rights.

This vote today starts that subset's mid-term election bid on their new platform of being anti-2nd amendment.

Best of luck getting re-elected.

Posted by: civilrightist | July 22, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuseClassic republican idea - dumb and short-sighted.

This piece of legislation should have never been permitted to get off the drawing board...Complete mash-up of states rights/laws and a potential abdication of Federal Law....totally stupid.Since these bozos have nothing else to do, Reid should just tell them to start their vacation now and come back next spring...maybe.Posted by: rbaldwin2 | July 22, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abusefiveman3 wrote: "The 2nd Amendment states the people have "the right to keep and bear arms." Funny how proponents of the 2nd amendment never provide the entire amendment's wording, just the part they like.

Here is the entire amendment:---A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

---And though I believe people have the right to own "Arms", as many who were involved in the writing of the Constitution have stated, I believe it is up to the state, not the federal government, to determine what "Arms" are and any restrictions needed in that state to maintain peace and safety.

This amendment would have reduced a state's right to maintain safety down to the lowest level of safety in the nation.

The NRA believes the 2nd amendment is an absolute right.

If you followed their level of reasoning then the 1st amendment would allow yelling fire in a theater.

States have the same right to regulate arms as they have the right to regulate speech, and for the same reason, safety.

Violating states rights to promote gun sales is about as diabolical as can be.Posted by: bevjims1 | July 22, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuseI am thankful this amendment was defeated.

What is johnstonrw smoking? How can he compare a driver's license to a concealed carry permit? Allowing a concealed weapon to cross over into another state only breathes trouble--haven't enough people been killed or mamed because of weapons? We need to get these weapons off the street--prosecute those who smuggle weapons and other means of destruction in order to take a life.

Who has the right to take a life? And I am disappinted and annoyed with the thought of even bringing this amendment to the floor.Posted by: blessingsalways | July 22, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuseGuns and Jesus.

The Conservative right never, ever, gets enough.

So much for the Prince of Peace, eh?(Yawn)"Guns don't kill, people.

People kill people." People still need to pull the trigger, I think.(Yawn)"Second Ammendment rights!" Not even the Constitutional scholars agree on this one.

But it seems to me a militia, is, well, like the National Guard?(Yawn)"When we disarm law-abiding citizens, only the criminal will have guns." Um, that's why they are criminals.

Anyway, the data on self-defense as opposed to handgun violence speaks for itself: More people murder than defend.

Period.Last comment.

In the words of Oscar Wilde: "America is the only country to go from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between." Without reason and logic, too, apparently.Posted by: inplants | July 22, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuseThe gun control fanatics from the big cities and the Northeast have inflicted their irrational fears on the rest of the country for far too long.

Polls show that at least 65% of voters wanted this legislation and I am getting rather sick and tired of a few fanatics inflicting their ideology on us.

------------- You know, it's fine that you think this way, but it's not enough.

There are reasons the NRA doesn't set successful law, and that's because they really can't reason intelligently or understand consequence, and that has greater implications for the nation, as a whole.

Dumb people can't run this country, and it shows.

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | July 22, 2009 1:55 PM | Report abusemillbrooks27 wrote:"The crackpots from the looney left have gotten control of the Democratic Party.

The "progressive" (and there's an oxymoron) don't represents me or other classic liberals and a Democratic Party that listens to them has no business governing.

The looney's on the left support "free trade", more H1-B visas, twin evils that have cost this country 40 million jobs, Wall Street bailouts, "health care reform" that is nothing more than a new feed trough for the health care parasites and NOT universal health care, illegal immigration and amnesty, a whole host of evils that the vast majority of voters are opposed to.

In 2010, when you loose and loose big, when Obama's gerbil's and Wall Street friends are simply crushed in the vote, then maybe the DNC will take a look at itself and start getting around to representing the actual people who vote.

It seems the Republican's learned their lesson about Bush and the NeoCon clodhoppers, at least.

The Democrats have leaned absolutely nothing.

Morons.

As a proud to be leftist, it is odd to agree with everything millbrooks wrote except one thing.

The reason the Democrats are out of control and doing the stupid things he lists is not that they are controlled by the Left, the way Republicans allow themselves to be controlled by the Right.

The problem with Democrats is that they are in fact Liberals.

Liberals are weak, they compromise on everything, they are careless and they are therefore incapable of drawing political lines, whether moral, at the borders or otherwise.None of us on the "looney left" support the Goldman Sachs takeover of Obama's brain, we despise the race to the bottom that is free trade, we recognize the disaster that is the House cap and trade bill, the corrupt foolish health care reform effort to date and we recognize jobs as the central challenge for this country in the coming years.

I don't think US Liberals get any of this.

Liberals think the Obama administration is doing just fine.

Out here on the Left, we see nothing but more and more and more crony capitalism, the nightmare of working people everywhere.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 22, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuseThey want to be able to load up their guns in the car and head to DC to overthrow OBAMA! They have fantasies of 100,000 armed kooks assaulting the White House.

This way the law can stop them at the state line and take them out.Posted by: Tomcat3 | July 22, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuseIn other words, the liberal bloc defeated the blockhead bloc.Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 22, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuseonly wimps and women carry gunsPosted by: sux123 | July 22, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abusei'd bet good money that the great majority of those so-called democrat moderates who bent over for the n.r.a.

wiped their brows in relief that this piece of crap went down.

what is it going to take to make these frauds side with the great majority of us americans who believe in reasonable, responsible gun control? you can't open a newspaper these days without seeing some story where people have been senselessly gunned down, including police officers.

i hope to live to see the day when we at least get back to the level of gun control we took for granted in the days of 'leave it to beaver.' Posted by: jimfilyaw | July 22, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abusePersonally, I do not think the state has any business in marriages.

That is something between God and individuals, or with athiests between individuals.

What about plural marriage? Those of you who argue the doors should be open to marriages of all kinds, what about that? I lived with two women once.

This was ok.

But if the three of us wanted to marry, that would have been against the law? Whose law? Two people, or more, can climb a mountain and exchange vows -- like they did in the Bible -- and they would be married.

Marrigage is the interchange of vows.

Incidently, for those of you with limited right now intelligence, people could also exchange vows in valleys or while they were travelling across state lines.

I am a single man who does not presently date, but advocate this for people who are free.

The state should have no say in marriage except to restrict at what age this can occur.

The question was why should one liscense be recognized in all states but another not? That is what I do not understand.

If you do, please inform me.Posted by: fiveman3 | July 22, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abusesperrico writes:"California is going to release thousands of prison inmates.

About 75 percent of them, according to parole statistics, will re-offend.

People who are against firearm ownership in certain areas in the state might have to forswear their goofy position once they're scared sh(tless with paroled thugs from the East Bay of Frisco, (Oakland) for example, break in homes in Marin County where rich Libs reside."Dont know about where you live, but where i live they have this group of people called THE POLICE, who protect my property.

And unlike you they are trained in firearms........Posted by: rharring | July 22, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuseOwning and pampering guns is a visceral verging on sexual need.

In what manner can the impotent overcome their handicap? Owning a gun is the obvious answer.

One inserts an always at the ready phallus/cartridge into a willing gun chamber/vagina.

The slightest pull on the trigger/clitoris results in a never failing orgasmic explosion: every time.

.

.

without fail!Posted by: jclarkebis | July 22, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuseForget the amendment.

The votes were counted before Thune even filed it.

The real reason for it was to give national notice that the ultra right-wing Senator and C-Street regular at the secretive "Family" compound in DC (Sanford, Ensign, Pickering, et al) is unfolding his leathery wings for a run at the Presidency in 2012.

This was more than a flare fired over Palin's head as she flees Alaska.

Thune is intent on aerating the fetid swamp that is the remnant of Eisenhower's & Dirksen's honorable GOP in the hope that the stench of Bush, Cheney, Addington, and Rumsfeld will have dissipated in three years when the Party That Wrecked America will try to finish us off.

Posted by: linzoid | July 22, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse"Would you have us believe these were un-licensed drivers?"Actually, in many cases driving fatalities are caused by people driving on suspended licenses or no licenses at all.

Thanks for bringing that up!Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 22, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse I have a Concealed Handgun Permit in Virginia and all I have to say is, Democrats from Red States will pay the price in the next election.Posted by: AlbyVA | July 22, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuseActually, this would protect state's rights if anyone commenting against is would have read the amendment.

The amendment basically stated, like a drivers license, a permit from your state of residence is recognized in any other state.

You still have to follow that states' concealed handgun laws.

If for instance, like Illinois, where the second amendment is denied, you cannot carry there because they do not have a permit system or allow concealed carry.

I enjoyed how the author left out that crucial component as well as the last fact to Pelosi's home state CCW application.

You have to do everything that California does to get a permit in Texas and many other states that was listed in the article.

The single exception is that you are required to have valid reason for the permit to the local authority.

Essentially CA, NY, NJ, and others only allow the PRIVILEGED permits, because "personal protection" is not a valid reason.Oh, maybe you missed the known fact that more people are killed by cars than guns on the drivers license question.

As well as heart disease and a few others before you get to guns.

Included in the gun statistic is suicide and it is a 5/4 ratio to crime, if I recall correctly.Here is an interesting article on statistics from a former gun control proponent.

http://www.kc3.com/CCDW_Stats/what_you_dont_know.htmHis amendment also states that you cannot be carry if you are prohibited under federal law.

READ the bill before making assumptions based on bad reporting:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=111&amdt=s1618Posted by: TxDrifter | July 22, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuseYeah, Republicrats.

We have no choice and therefore there will never be change.

Posted by: griffah | July 22, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse I think you're right, jim.

All the hard deals were going down in the Democratic cloakroom, figuring out which "moderate Dem" would be the last one to vote down the amendment in order to kill it.Thune doesn't care about concealed-carry laws.

He wants to look good to the base, and maybe to pull some NRA support off a few vulnerable Dems.Posted by: mikeinmidland | July 22, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuseJohninMpls wrote: "The people who do not want a gun, do not have to have a gun.

But the law abiding citizen who desires a gun to protect him- or herself should be allowed to do so after screening and training are accomplished."But don't bring it into my kid's school or my local city hall.

Rights are not absolute.

If you think they are, let me know what town you live in so I can come and yell fire in a theater.

Will you support me exercising my rights, 1st amendment in this case?Posted by: bevjims1 | July 22, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuseIsn't it nice to have a super-majority? F all you right wing nut cases!Posted by: adrienne_najjar | July 22, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuseI should have proofread that.

Wrote too many parts between breaks, and it is atrocious grammar.Posted by: TxDrifter | July 22, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuseUnder this proposal, Louisiana could stop its own citizens from carrying concealed guns, but Louisiana could not stop someone from Mississippi or Texas from traveling to, through, and around Louisiana carrying a concealed gun.

So you would have to know where a person gets their mail to know whether or not they might be packing (legally).

Basically, you're saying states can't make law in their own state except over people who are actually from that state.This seems a little unsustainable.

I mean, analogies are inherently weak, but, -- Suppose my state has no speed limit.

Should I get to haul a$$ across the whole country at 125? My state has decriminalized pot (by referendum).

Shall we come toke up in the parking lot at your Walmart over there on our day off? "Hey, officer, it's mellow ...

I'm from Tokachusetts, dude ...

I won't get your, like, Connecticonians high ...

Whoa, what was that?"There are people who don't even live in the state they are a legal resident of.

You would have people touring the country in campers doing whatever they want if it's allowed in Tennessee, where their carport is.If concealed carry is a Constitutional right, then this proposal is superfluous.

If it's not, then, this is ...

pretty odd.Posted by: pressF1 | July 22, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuseBye bye Sen Arlen Specter.

You just lost all hope of re-election.Posted by: civilrightist | July 22, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuseI want a video of Turbin Durbin talking about "states rights".

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

Yah it was a real anti-gunner "victory".

With 39 votes.

Gee, I wonder why the antis' don't bring up the evil black rifle ban again?Posted by: Fiftycaltx1 | July 22, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abusesteves_59 - Every time a drunk with a valid driver's license gets behind the wheel of a 4000lb vehicle, he or she is breaking the terms to which he or she agreed when obtaining the license.

I don't have any particularly strong feelings about this gun amendment, other than feeling that it was ludicrous to attach it to the defense authorization bill.

But if your statement is indicative of your approach to decision-making, then I live in mortal fear that you may someday be in a position of responsibility.Posted by: bobsewell | July 22, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuseThe problem with Democrats is that they are in fact Liberals.

Liberals are weak, they compromise on everything, they are careless and they are therefore incapable of drawing political lines, whether moral, at the borders or otherwise.------------They're not weak, they're bought and sold just like their Republican counterparts, they are the lobbyist's pup.But that's OK, because with 2 wars and an economy that can't stand, with health care strangling the nation, they either get it right, or they fail.And the smarter people either force them out, or they fail too.There is no pretend, dumb people, and those who purport to be intellectual yet still come across as nothing more than empty-headed specious intellect, the words seem right but the ideas indicative of true intellect aren't there, and anyone with half a brain can spot them in a second, you know what I mean, anyway, they can't run it either.

ROTFLMAO.

And speaking of stupid, I would say at this point, as kind of an OT, Obama has lost all hope of true support in his efforts in Afghanistan, given how he's proceeding on hiding info from the public for his own purposes.So, Obama are the lobbyists adn corrupt directing policy here, too? That really makes it treason, and that makes him Bush and that's too bad.

How did that work out for Bush's war room anyway?And Obama's advisers are THAT dumb...Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | July 22, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuseIf someone has the right to walk into MY business with a hidden gun, then why can't they walk into Senator Thune's office with a hidden gun? If THEY can stop guns at their door, why can't I?Posted by: Tomcat3 | July 22, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuseEvery time a law like this is submitted, the anti-gunners go wild with ridiculous predictions of mayhem and bloodshed.They've never been right yet.

I would think people would start to notice.Posted by: EnjoyEverySandwich | July 22, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abusethis make feel good gun laws only makes Law abiding citizens dance through the hoops in order to own a gun.Do you really think a criminal is concerned wether he/she has a gun permit before he/she go out and commit a crime?? the black market supplies anyone with what ever anyone wants.when someone is breaking inot your house you are better off with a gun in your hand than a cop on the phone.Posted by: greenstheman | July 22, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse"Only law abiding citizens follow the law."Another "Wisdom Nugget" from America's Best and Brightest! Posted by: Tomcat3 | July 22, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuseStates honor drivers licenses of other states under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but when in foreign states, one has to obey that state's driving laws.Posted by: CheneyM | July 22, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuseIn states where there are concealed weapons permits individual businesses have the right to restrict people from entering armed by placing a notice at their front door.

In Arizona, where I do not live, it is typical to see these signs, particularly outside bars -- but not all bars.

Posted by: fiveman3 | July 22, 2009 2:13 PM | Report abuseAs a career criminal and loyal Democrat voter, I am thrilled that his amendment was defeated.

I know my homeys in office are looking out for me! Now I can rest assured that the next time I rob someone with my gun, my victim won't shoot back! I was worried for a minute there! Whew! One less job hazard for me to worry about! Thank you Democrats!Posted by: LoyalDemokratVoter | July 22, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuseStates' Rights huh?You know both parties are against federal intervention unless it favors their own beliefs.

Democrats are for federal intervention until that intervention goes against the party's core beliefts (e.g.

a federal amendment regarding gay marriage).

Republicans are all about States' rights until they need to enact something they believe in (e.g.

guns, gay marriage, etc.).I wonder...

are they all a bunch of hypocrites?Posted by: ATL_Pilot_1 | July 22, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuseWe say "Democratic." Dumb troll.Posted by: mikeinmidland | July 22, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abusemilbrook, why are you blaming "free trade" on leftist loonies? That sort of corporate-friendly stuff was traditionally Republican turf until Clinton broke with Democratic orthodoxy and supported NAFTA, but he hardly did so from a leftist orientation (far from it).

You seem really angry, but I think it's pretty sloppy thinking to just blame everything on one side of our mostly dysfunctional government.

For what it's worth, I'm mostly a liberal democrat, but I couldn't care less about gun control.

That doesn't mean I enjoy seeing all these Senators (from both parties) constantly rushing around to do the NRA's bidding when, I'm sorry, but we do have a few other issues to address, but ultimately I don't support gun control.

Posted by: benjaminanderson | July 22, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuseIt is gratifying that debate on this issue, and others, can take place online, and that we can learn from each other, see each other's concerns, look at each other's viewpoints.

At least, this is what is hoped.

We may not all agree on everything, but if we exchange views we may learn and we may make a better country.

May God continue to bless America.

Thanks for your views.Posted by: fiveman3 | July 22, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse""Your driver's license works across state borders, why not your permit to carry?"I can't believe this sort of reasoning is going around.

The answer, dear, is that you can't kill someone with a driver's license.Are you serious?? Every time a drunk with a valid driver's license gets behind the wheel of a 4000lb vehicle, there is an explicit threat that someone is going to die.

Every time someone willfully disobeys traffic laws, there is an explicit threat that someone may die from this action.

If this is the level of discourse going around, I'm in mortal fear of the future of this country."You folks really need to get your facts straight before launching tirades in favor of assault weapons.

But then, reading and reaserch ain't really "American" anymore are they now? States recognise each others license by specific regulation.

Read the DMV book ion your state please.

States have put rules in place to govern this recognition, if you stay too long you need to change your license or provide an explanation.

There is no such agreement or unanimity on guns.

So why should one state's rules be enforced on another.

Forget the dumb rhetoric for a moment.

And stop saying that marriage licenses are recognized.

They are only accepted withing the state's own laws.

Would your state recognize MA gay marriage licenses? Forgotten the Defense of marriage act? I'm sure all the Thunes supported that one.

It's the exact anti thesis o this bill.

Why the hypocisy? Aska nd answer some fundamental questions people...before getting all wrapped up in your lovely AK47s.Posted by: ps-md | July 22, 2009 2:19 PM | Report abusePost a CommentWe encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site.

Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed.

Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site.

Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

Comments:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/07/democrats_defeat_concealed_wea.html?hpid=topnews
Reply to this ad
Recently viewed ads
Saved ads
Please log in to browse your saved adverts or sign up if you don't have an account yet.
Popular Stuff